You are here

Self-defence against yourself?

I was just looking over some UK Government statistics for causes of death. A few interesting things jump out. The first thing is that males aged 15 to 34 are more likely to be the victim of homicide than any other group. However, “Suicide and injury/poisoning of undetermined intent” (the no 1 cause), road accidents, “mental and behavioural disorders due to psychoactive substance use” and accidental poisoning are all more likely causes of death.

Females of the same age group have the same percentage of deaths by homicide (but smaller numbers), but again death by “Suicide and injury/poisoning of undetermined intent” and road accidents are higher.

Once you get above that age group, homicide drops out of the top 10 and various health issues become much more likely causes of death. In the 35 to 54 male group the top 3 (in descending order) are heart disease, cirrhosis and other diseases of liver, and suicide and injury/poisoning of undetermined intent. In the 35 to 54 female group the top 3 are (in descending order) are breast cancer, cirrhosis and other diseases of liver and heart disease (suicide comes in at number 6).

For the higher age groups the top 10 is made up entirely of health issues (i.e. suicide, homicide and accidental poisoning not in top 10).

The fact that young males (who generally get into what would be avoidable situations much more readily than any other group) are the most likely to be killed is maybe not surprising. Neither is “poisoning of undetermined intent” or “mental and behavioural disorders due to psychoactive substance use” as younger groups are the most likely to overindulge in alcohol and take illicit substances.

One thing that is perhaps a little more surprising is that those younger groups are far more likely to kill themselves (unintentionally or intentionally) than be killed. Geoff Thompson has said many times that “self-defence begins with defence against the self” and this would seem to be particularly true for the under 35s.

There is obviously the behavioural issues relating to self-protection i.e. don’t put yourself in harm’s way and fight over ego or other inconsequential things (a propensity of the young hence the higher homicide figures). But it would seem other behaviours (drink, drugs, reckless driving, etc) are more likely to lead to death. Suicide is a complex issue, but it again shows young people are more likely to die by their own hand than by anyone else’s.

You could even ague that some, certainly not all, of the health issues experienced by the older age groups are also due to personal behaviour i.e. heart disease due to bad diet and lifestyle; liver disease due to heavy drinking, etc.

The inescapable bottom line though is that as we progress through life we are far more likely to be the causes of our own deaths than we are to be killed by someone else. Whether it be unnecessary risk or poor lifestyle, statistically we are all potetially “our own worst enemy”.

As well as watching out for the behaviour of others and ensuring they can’t harm us, it would seem there is much to be said for watching out for our own behaviours and intervening (or seeking help from others) before we can harm ourselves. After all, in the broadest view of “self-protection”, it would seem it is “yourself” that you could need most protecting from?

It also raises the interesting consideration that the health and positive lifestyle that martial arts can promote may be much more likely to save your life than physical self-protection and fighting skills?

The document I was looking at can be found below as it’s well worth a look through:

I read somewhere that, "statistically", we are more likely to die at the hands of someone else during our first year on the planet, than any other year of our lives.

So, anyone who has got past that first year is already past the most dangerous point in terms of self defence from another person (you might say)

So that leaves, as you have already put, self defence against the self!

The big message I give to people on my Self Protection workshops (stuff I do for corporate clients that doesn't have any real physical element), is that the techniques of awareness that we apply to self defence situations, can also be applied to every other aspect of our lives.

While I'm being aware of my surroundings, potential threats versus good things, i can also translate that to my health, my relationship, my work, my business, etc etc

Looking out for threats, evaluating those threats, also looking out for positive things, opportunities, things that will help me out, etc

I wrote about this some time ago "Colour Code Your Life" - hope you don't mind me adding a link here

I read somewhere that, "statistically", we are more likely to die at the hands of someone else during our first year on the planet, than any other year of our lives.

So, anyone who has got past that first year is already past the most dangerous point in terms of self defence from another person (you might say)

That’s very interesting. The statistics I was looking at don’t go into that much detail.

Leading causes of death in England and Wales wrote:

Infant deaths have been excluded from age specific analysis. This is primarily because the cause list was originally designed to look at causes across all age groups combined and those affecting infants are rather different …

… This means that comparable data for neonates could not easily be produced. Deaths between the ages of 28 days and 1 year have therefore only been included in the ‘all ages’ category for analysis.

The point is valid and as someone “over 34”, I’m statistically well past the point were others are likely to be a big threat to me (and I also don’t live my life in a way that brings me into regular conflict with others). I’d also like to think my lifestyle is pretty healthy … but overworking myself and a little too much caffeine (I do like my coffee these days) are not good for someone with my genetic inheritance. As I say, the statistics did get me thinking.

The RBSD fanatic who has a high fat diet may need to think a little wider about the most pressing threats to their life. I’m certainly not saying we can ignore criminal behaviour and the threat that poses; however, we may need to get it in perspective and also look at the wider issues that can also affect our health and quality of life. The article you link to and is very good and covers those issues very well.

Probably one of the main ways to stop yourself getting hurt would be to stop doing martial arts altogether.

Good point! It’s one of the few places you can go where you are guaranteed to have people attack you!

It’s also a valid point when it comes to injuries. All the permanent injuries I have come from the dojo (although I have a few scars that did not). On the other side of it, the positive physical and mental benefits of training are almost certain to outweigh that.

Personally I love training. It adds to the quality of my life massively. A messed up hand, temperamental shoulder and a dickey knee have been prices well worth paying in my view.

There’s also no denying that physical skills can be life-saving. We may get hurt in the dojo, but we can be killed in reality. I certainly know people who are not dead because of combative training.

The key is that the precautions are always proportional to the risk. If you ignore any risk you have problems (unprepared and open to the risk). If you take precautions way in excess of the actual risk you also have problems (paranoia?).

As I say, for me the risk of injury in the dojo is proportional when I look at the benefits training brings; both in terms of “preserving life” and “enhancing life”.

It's worth bearing in mind that many people that die at 25 through violence are also dying of heart disease too.

They just haven't reached the age where that has happened. :) They are still indugling in a life that will lead to heart disease however. Statistics by age can be pretty hard to decipher.

I can remember having an online debate with a pretty hardcore American RBSD dude. A person that advocated carrying multiple weapons, swords for self defence (wrote a book about it in fact), spent endless hours practicing concealed carry draws for his gun and tactical folder, wrote an article about the dangers posed by homeless folk, how to bash people with flashlights etc etc.

Quite an extreme example of what can be bad about RBSD IMHO.

Now this same dude was also carrying approx. 20-25lb of excess weight (it seemed to me...he wouldn't tell me how much).

I tried to point out that as a western white male (that didn't work in LE, security or the military) he was in far more danger from age onset diseases exacerbated by being overweight than any violence from an outside party. And as such should probably prioritise his personal health before getting more guns.

Sadly it fell on deaf ears. He thought I was telling im fat people didn't have the right to defend themselves.

At the end of the day people are pretty bad at appraising risk and even worse at doing hard work like getting down the gym when they could be doing cool stuff like collecting guns and knives. :(

Suicide is the largest killer for males 18-35. Unfortunately the reasons are complex and the reporting of such incidents often create more harm than good. The complexity comes when a) you deal with a demographic unwilling to talk about it being a potential problem, and b) the problem can be triggered many years before by one or several issues such as mental health, abuse, addiction etc. The positive effects martial arts brings to one's mental health far outway a few scrapes, bruises, and yes, even a dodgy knee or two. Apart from the feeling of belonging, the obvious physical developments and self improvement, it's the confidence it can foster that can improve one's well being elsewhere in their life.

I've been workIng for the charity CALM recently http://www.thecalmzone.net and we're thinking of ways of helping males 'reset' their lives in small ways. And yes, getting males to take up martial arts has been one of the first ideas, hopefully culminating in a introduction event early next year. The pitch being: 'a Wednesday night on the coach, or one training like Chuck Norris!'... Maybe. ;o)

he was in far more danger from age onset diseases exacerbated by being overweight than any violence from an outside party. And as such should probably prioritise his personal health before getting more guns.

This is an interesting “disconnect”. I wonder if it is to do with the very different psychologically reaction to damage done to ourselves by ourselves and damage done to us by others?

Whether I accidentally reverse my car into a bollard or whether someone “keys it” the end result to the car is damage that needs repaired. My emotionally reaction is very different though. Likewise, my emotional reaction to my house being destroyed by a flood and my emotional reaction to my house being destroyed by a rampaging gang would be very different. I feel this would also apply to damage done to our physical beings as well as property.

I think we would all have a much stronger emotional reaction to another person damaging our health that we would if it was our own acts or omissions that damaged our health. We may feel anger, a desire to get even, vulnerability, a drop in self-esteem, insecure or unsafe, and a whole host of other emotions.

I wonder if it is those emotions that people wish protect themselves against as opposed to the physical damage? It could explain while why those with physically unhealthy life styles ignore the threat they pose to themselves and yet obsess about the damage others could do?

Like all things there is a sliding scale and I would say it is wise for all people to make themselves a “hard target”. However, there is no doubt that ceaselessly obsessing about the damage the criminal fraternity could do is not psychologically healthy. Combine that will a physically unhealthy lifestyle and there are probably deeper issues that need addressed.

Anyhow, having had time to think about this, I feel that it is likely to be the emotional reaction to the damage done by others that gives it greater weight that than damage a person does to themselves.

I feel that it is likely to be the emotional reaction to the damage done by others that gives it greater weight that than damage a person does to themselves.

Absolutely. It's a view that has only come to mean something to me as I get older and such risks start to hit closer to home. As someone with a fairly "uneventful" life an attack from some other person just doesn't seem as relevent as it did when I was in my 20's pubbing and clubbing.

With my current lifestyle (fairly rural location, plenty of dog walking) I think I'm probably more likely to get attacked by a cow than a person. :)

I have a pretty good idea EXACTLY who Paul is talking about. He even did a whole YouTube video explaining why it is not necessary to be fit for RBSD. It partly inspired my "The Pornography of Reality Based Self Defence" article.

A really good science-based book on the realities of the dangers we face today is Dan Gardner's "Risk". We live in the safest times in recorded history. This also includes the statistics that reveal the reason why the number of cancer victims tends to rise is because people are living longer. Of course, the biggest factor linked to cancer is old age. So, in many ways it is an indication that we are healthier than ever before.

Interestingly, Gardner references the medieval period in the western world as the time when you were something in the region of 14 times (I need to check the exact figure) more likely to be the victim of a civilian homicide. I say interesting, as this is the earliest period where we start seeing treatises and depictions of learned self defence methods (see Graham Noble's article on this) in the western world.

Who knows perhaps the next paradigm shift in RBSD might be self defence from "unreasonable fear".

A really good science-based book on the realities of the dangers we face today is Dan Gardner's "Risk".

You’ve told me about that book previously and I really do need to get around to getting a copy. It sounds very interesting and highly relevant to the theme being discussed.

Jamie Clubb wrote:

Who knows perhaps the next paradigm shift in RBSD might be self defence from "unreasonable fear".

Hopefully, but my suspicion for the wider “martial arts world” – based on my observations of how the martial arts world tends to operate – is that the prevailing trend could well be to swing past the “balanced” point towards the other extreme i.e. “We live in the safest time in history and a disproportionate fear of crime can be very damaging … so let’s bother to address it at all.”

Once this thinking becomes “mainstream” (or more accurately once the phases associated with this thinking become mainstream) effectively addressing self-protection may be seen as “buying into the fear”. The buzzwords and phrases of “keeping a sense of proportion”, “avoiding unreasonable and unhealthy fear” and “balance” will be used to justify totally ignoring effective self-protection.

In this thread when we say “keeping a sense of proportion”, “avoiding unreasonable and unhealthy fear”, “balance”, etc we mean just that. But what could happen is people pick upon such phrases and use them to justify a swing to the other extreme, or to remain at that extreme for those already there, as opposed to actual balance.

In the martial arts we often see people picking up on “popular terms” without appreciating what those terms are supposed to represent. As a few examples, how many groups and individuals use the terms “awareness”, “fear”, “the fence” etc without having the first clue about what they represent? They pick up on the term and lay it over what they teach; all the while failing to teach in accordance with the concepts those terms are supposed to actually represent.

I think we are staring to see a “post reality-revolution” trend where “balance” and the issues surrounding the fear of crime are beginning to find their way into the mainstream martial consciousness. Will be see the thinking truly permeate mainstream practise (which would be great) … or will we see the majority carrying on regardless with a few new words and phrases to use out of context to justify not addressing the real needs of self-protection? Time will tell.

Accurately understanding the risk of violent crime and effectively addressing that risk is where true balance is to be found. However, those to the extremes tend to use the term “balance” to argue against those on the other extreme. The don’t want balance, but it’s a good tool to whack the enemy with i.e. "You need to move toward us as you have no sense of proportion" (all the while ignoring the fact that the reverse is true for them ;-). As I say, it will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next couple of years.

A really good science-based book on the realities of the dangers we face today is Dan Gardner's "Risk".

You’ve told me about that book previously and I really do need to get around to getting a copy. It sounds very interesting and highly relevant to the theme being discussed.

Hi Iain,

Yes, it is very valid for this entire thread. The book not only deals with our fears of crime and violence, but all the other scaremongering that goes on - fear of chemicals, fear of disease, fear of terrorism and so on. You see, I see a wider issue at stake here. When martial artists aren't publicizing an innaccurate picture of violence in our society they are making us fearful of being unfit.

I am being hopeful with the paradigm shift, of course, and I think your belief on what is likely to happen is more realistic. As you know, my upcoming article will address this group polarization issue in martial arts basically stemming from an inability to look at matters objectively and accepting constructive criticism outside their immediate circle of influence. You cannot help but look back to history for a reference on this issue. Think about the whole Japanese transitional period at the end of the 19th century and the emergeance of the "Do" distinction, which I believe was partly a survival concept by the martial arts instructors of the time.

Many RBSD instructors probably fear a lack of purpose when they face data like the fall of violent crime statistics in a way that might be comparable to the 19th century followers of bushido. As if to further cause problems, I argue that the unique purpose of self defence training and martial arts is dealing with violence. There are other activities that can provide any of the benefits a combative past-time offers and many at a far higher and more focused level. Discipline, fitness, philosophy, culture, spirituality and motivational principles can be obtained in a far less abstract way than in a martial arts or self defence class. I suppose it could be argued that you can also learn other sports, but I think this is safely countered under preferences alone.

So why bother? Well, it is highly unlikely that you will die of drowning, but most parents make sure their children can swim. True it's a fun sport and past-time, but a strong motivator for it is the fear of drowning. That is the primary function, after that it's playtime (and yes I can completely see the parallel with SD/MA). I have been around high risk situations all of my life and I live next door to some of the most dangerous creatures on the planet (made more dangerous by their low fear of humans), but I haven't seen live CPR administered yet. I have been on many First Aid courses from my sixth form days onwards and I will be undertaking the three day one this year, but only the absolute basics and common sense I have known since before I took a formal course have ever come into play. I have seen accidental fires, but never in situations where a fire drill practice could have been utilized and yet we still practiced them.

Self defence training should be brought into line with the above. This includes the amount of time a student spends learning it. I say 10 hours is the maximum time required for a student to retain enough soft and hard skills information to be profecient in front line civilian self protection. Any immediate self defence training after that should be specialist in nature relating to specific skills that are appropriate to the person or their work. During those initial self-contained 10 hours it is the duty of the instructor to only be brutally honest about the realities of what can happen, how they are targeted by predators, the most common types of human predator and what is efficient in a violent encounter, but also to assuage irrational fears by not retaining any information regarding crime statistics or the liklihood of being involved in interpersonal violence.

I feel First Aid skills are not trained enough anyway and should be reviewed/revised on a monthly basis. The same should go for self defence or at least an annual refresher course, which would bring the student up to date with any changes in training methods, the law and criminal trends.

This then leaves all other training to come under the heading of attribute training and functional fitness. These skills and attributes can be brought over into self defence to improve your hard skills, but for the most part they for sporting and recreational interests.

Yes, it is very valid for this entire thread. The book not only deals with our fears of crime and violence, but all the other scaremongering that goes on - fear of chemicals, fear of disease, fear of terrorism and so on. You see, I see a wider issue at stake here. When martial artists aren't publicizing an innaccurate picture of violence in our society they are making us fearful of being unfit.

Sounds like an interesting book Jamie.

As someone who used to be a historian I'd be VERY interested as to which countries and which time periods were chosen for comparisons on inter human violence and murder rates.

I'm not personally familiar with MAists perpetuating an inaccurate picture of violence in our society. But maybe i don't get out enough! I am familiar with the media causing an inaccurate picture of violence in society.

Jamie Clubb wrote:

Many RBSD instructors probably fear a lack of purpose when they face data like the fall of violent crime statistics in a way that might be comparable to the 19th century followers of bushido. As if to further cause problems, I argue that the unique purpose of self defence training and martial arts is dealing with violence. There are other activities that can provide any of the benefits a combative past-time offers and many at a far higher and more focused level. Discipline, fitness, philosophy, culture, spirituality and motivational principles can be obtained in a far less abstract way than in a martial arts or self defence class. I suppose it could be argued that you can also learn other sports, but I think this is safely countered under preferences alone.

I will be delighted if violent crime drops significantly. Personally I'd like to see recorded crime down to the level of the 1950s. It's not happening at the moment though. It's going to be a long time before we get there.

Jamie Clubb wrote:

So why bother? Well, it is highly unlikely that you will die of drowning, but most parents make sure their children can swim. True it's a fun sport and past-time, but a strong motivator for it is the fear of drowning. That is the primary function, after that it's playtime (and yes I can completely see the parallel with SD/MA). I have been around high risk situations all of my life and I live next door to some of the most dangerous creatures on the planet (made more dangerous by their low fear of humans), but I haven't seen live CPR administered yet. I have been on many First Aid courses from my sixth form days onwards and I will be undertaking the three day one this year, but only the absolute basics and common sense I have known since before I took a formal course have ever come into play. I have seen accidental fires, but never in situations where a fire drill practice could have been utilized and yet we still practiced them.

Your examples make me smile as I lifeguard for young people, and I'm a first aid trainer. I end up using first aid regularly (outside class) but fortunately I've never had to use the most severe lifeguarding or first aid skills. Still, I'm glad I have them and I think the more people who have them the better.

Jamie Clubb wrote:

Self defence training should be brought into line with the above. This includes the amount of time a student spends learning it. I say 10 hours is the maximum time required for a student to retain enough soft and hard skills information to be profecient in front line civilian self protection. Any immediate self defence training after that should be specialist in nature relating to specific skills that are appropriate to the person or their work. During those initial self-contained 10 hours it is the duty of the instructor to only be brutally honest about the realities of what can happen, how they are targeted by predators, the most common types of human predator and what is efficient in a violent encounter, but also to assuage irrational fears by not retaining any information regarding crime statistics or the liklihood of being involved in interpersonal violence.

I agree. I have some regular students in addition to the many who I lecture or run short courses for, but the regular students are essentially training to be instructors, and/or training regularly because they love working the skills.

Jamie Clubb wrote:

I feel First Aid skills are not trained enough anyway and should be reviewed/revised on a monthly basis. The same should go for self defence or at least an annual refresher course, which would bring the student up to date with any changes in training methods, the law and criminal trends.

Fair point. The current 3 yr renewal model for first aid was very much an industry compromise. When its not your main job - how often would you be prepared to lose workforce for training?

Personally I think the basics, the need to know info, can be absorbed by most people in a short time. However, I also think that to be a good self protection instructor requires a lot of hard work and a great deal of study. I've met many martial arts instructors over the years, often very nice guys, generally very able and talented martial artists and MA instructors, but they do not have the right skills or knowledge to teach Self Protection.